The Electro-Magnetic Radiation Pressure (EMRP) Gravity Theory

This paper aims at providing a satisfying theory for the yet unknown mechanism for gravity. It is well known that the law of gravitation was mathematically described as a field theory by Einstein's general theory of relativity as early as 1916, however, although I have no doubt that its mathematics is correct, GR offers absolutely no mechanism to describe why gravity works the way it does. It is hereby proposed that gravitation is caused by the interaction of matter with extremely high frequency, circularly polarized, electromagnetic waves sourced by cosmic waves in the upper gamma frequency spectrum which pervades all space. Radiation pressure imbalance of such highly penetrating extragalactic incoming radiation, acting through all matter is held responsible for pushing matter together.
The idea that gravity is a push from the outside, was first proposed by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier, a close friend of Newton, and dates back to 1690. He proposed the fundamentals of a simple particle theory of gravity. There was a strong personal relationship between Isaac Newton and Fatio in the years 1690 to 1693. Newton's statements on Fatio's theory differed widely, from praise to ridicule. For example, after describing the necessary conditions for a mechanical explanation of gravity, he wrote in an unpublished note in his own printed copy of the Principia in 1692: The unique hypothesis by which gravity can be explained is however of this kind, and was first devised by the most ingenious geometer Mr. N. Fatio.. However, we know most about Fatio's work, mainly from references to it within Georges-Louis Le Sage's work in 1724, which is well known for advancing the same theory to the public. Le Sage’s ultramundane particles (a sea of highly penetrating tiny particles coming from beyond the earth) provided a physical connection that pushes masses together. Le Sage is also described as a push gravity theory and is generally discredited because of its inelastic interactions, which would tend to heat up and slow down the body. This would cause planetary orbits to decay and the planets themselves to heat up and increase in mass. To avoid these problems, Newton, and later Maxwell, assumed that bodies must produce a stress in the aether about them of such nature as to account for gravitation, but they were unable to imagine any physical cause for the stress. Others have also suggested ultra low frequencies to replace LeSage's particles to describe the same effect. Le Sage’s ideas were not well-received during his day, except for some of his friends and associates like Pierre Prévost, Charles Bonnet, Jean-André Deluc and Simon Lhuilier. They mentioned and described Le Sage's theory in their books and papers, which were used by their contemporaries as a secondary source for Le Sage's theory due to the lack of published papers by Le Sage himself. Despite the problems specifically related to particular details of Le Sage particulate model, the push gravity concept offers great simplicity and physical clarity, and many researchers felt that the main idea is in the right direction. It gave rise to numerous published works, amongst which we have those of Lorentz, H.Poincare, F.Brush, Secchi, Leray, V.Thomson, Schramm, Tait, Isenkrahe, Preston, Jarolimek, Waachy, Rynsanek, Darwin, Majorana, J.K.Harms, Sulaiman.
During one of his lectures, Richard Feynman also showed his interest in such theories because they provide a mechanism for gravity that eliminates the magical action at a distance problem with today's definition of the attraction of masses.
It seems that due to recent interest and acceptance of zero point fields, the push gravity theory may be on its rise again. Present researchers include J.Kierein, H.Arp, J.Evans, Frans van Luteren, E.J.Aiton, V.V.Radzievski and I.I.Kagalnikova, S.V.Byers, Tom Van Flandern, V.Slabinski, M.R.Edwards, T.Jaakkola, K.E.Veselov, B.Mingst, P.Stowe, P.Adamut, Roberto de Andrade Martins, G.T.Gillies, C.S.Unnikrishnan, H.H.v.Borzeszkowski, H.J. Treder, M.Kokus, V.Buonomano, G.D.Hathaway and of course myself Ing.X.Borg.
The EMRP theory proposed here, is explained in terms of classical transverse electromagnetic waves, in which Le Sage's ultramundane particles have been replaced by high energy photons, and matter is analysed from the point of view of its wave-like property. The EMRP theory thus becomes an elaborated version of Le Sage's theory, or the later version from Charles F.Brush. Most importantly, the push gravity concept has been retained as it applies equally well to both particles and Poynting vector qualities, whilst problematic issues due to Le Sage mechanical details have been solved using present knowledge of both electromagnetic radiation, and matter's wave properties. Many other good ideas come from the past work of other researchers, which unfortunately have not been able to complete a satisfactory theory during their life time, though some of them came quite close. For this reason, I like to quote Newton's own statement in one of his letters to Robert Hooke: If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants. Said that, I have also to say that seeing further is one thing, but kicking off an established paradigm is far from what one can expect to achieve in a single lifetime.

The well known effect of radiation pressure, due to the longitudinal Poynting flow vector present in all electromagnetic fields, is used to describe the momentum transfer which in other theories is attributed to either particles' collisions or a material aether. Unfortunately, radiation pressure (the transfer of momentum from waves to particles) wasn't yet experimentally proven during the development of most push gravity theories, and I suppose that's probably the reason of their failure to produce a complete satisfactory mechanism to explain gravity. I will show that the frequency band of the electromagnetic frequency creating the pressure difference in the fabric of spacetime is very close to the upper limit of the electromagnetic spectrum, that is to Planck's frequency, and energy is the entity which in the form of travelling electromagnetic waves and standing EM wave structures (which we call matter), make up the spacetime fabric together with all matter. The shadowing effect of this electromagnetic energy creates electromagnetic radiation pressure differences known to obey the inverse square law, as in Newton's gravitational force, providing both a push from the illuminated high pressure side, and a pull from the shadowed low pressure side, and at the same time, explains the mass defect phenomena in terms of total shadowing of the core nuclei. The above diagram shows how mass M2 shadows the electromagnetic radiation that would reach M1 in its absence. The net force vector on M1 will result in its movement towards M2. In a similar fashion M1 will cast a shadow on M2 (not shown for the sake of clarity), which will result in the motion of M2 towards M1.

What is gravity?

We can feel gravity acting on all bodies made up of matter. We also have two laws of gravity; Newton's and Einstein's. Newton's law simply states that every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force which for any two bodies is proportional to the mass of each and varies as the inverse square of the distance between them. This statement is expressed mathematically by the well known equation:

F= (G m m')/r2

Despite the success of the above law to describe the gravitational force, Newton still found himself unable to offer any adequate explanation of what and how all is happening. Also, later on, in spite of all excitement following Newton's law of universal gravitation, Einstein showed it was wrong, well not completely wrong, but required to take into account his theory of relativity. Newton's law assumes the gravitation effect to be instantaneous, that means that a mass would 'feel' the movement of another distant mass instantaneously, without any propagation delay, and this would make gravity information go faster than the speed of light. Einstein's law thus tweaked Newton's equation to take these delays into account, but made a silly assumption, namely that the speed of light must be a universal constant across the whole frequency range. More on this later.

Gravitational force is being applied to each and every unit cell making up matter and space itself. It can be considered as an interaction between an external force and each elementary unit which combine under different configurations to make up different kinds of matter. We can shield electric field, magnetic fields, electromagnetic fields but not gravity. That's what we are taught, but not what our own experiments have confirmed.

Most of the mainstream physics we are taught is based on Newtonian and Einstein's physics, however believe it or not, the machinery of gravitation is completely unknown. Mainstream physics has no answer to the simple question 'What is gravity?', and more or less answers us the same way as Newton did over 320 years ago. Quoting Sir Isaac Newton:

"I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from the phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. ....it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies".

Maybe it was enough in those days to know that gravity really exists, but surely not enough in order to develop any serious thoughts about gravity and how to control such phenomena. Unfortunately, nobody, has since given any plausible cause of gravity, without predicting some other phenomenon that can be disproved. Less known is the fact that, in private Newton was obsessed with the causes of gravity, positing the existence of a material aether in many of his unpublished works, in order to solve the action at a distance problem. In fact, we have written evidence, that Newton used a pushing gravity hypothesis in the first place in order to arrive at the inverse square law. Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'

Unfortunately, to this day, the push gravity has remained just a hypothesis, an unrivalled yet mostly ignored hypothesis, mainly due to the lack of robust and repeatable experimental evidence. There is no explanation of gravity in terms of the other known forces, except for the late introduction of the hypothetical gravitons that further patch up the framework of quantum field theory. Well, no explanation until you read this theory...

First of all we should compare the laws of gravity to other laws that we can explain. It is very interesting to note the relationship between the attraction of two masses, the attraction of two charges and that of two magnetic monopoles. All these have one thing in common, they obey the inverse square law, which is simply an equation in which the energy is projected over an area at a distance. It's good to note, that both luminosity and shadow obey the same law. What kind of energy can be projected at a distance? It is a well known fact that electromagnetic fields do not need 'matter' to travel, can travel with no problem through space for infinity and obey the inverse square law, which, as shown above is nothing but a purely geometric relation. Incidentally, or not so incidentally, the same applies to gravity.

Photos showing similarity between magnetic field (left) & electric field (right), indicating they obey the same rules. Same force fields apply to gravitational fields between 2 masses.

Despite the precise predictions of the equations of gravity when compared to experimental measurements, no one yet understands its connections with any other of the known forces. We also know that the equations for gravitational forces between two masses are VERY similar to those for electrical forces between charges, but we wonder why.

We learn that electrostatic forces are generated by charges, gravitational forces are generated by masses, and magnetic fields are generated by magnetic poles. But can this be really true? How could three mechanisms be so similar yet so different. Perhaps, I should quote Tesla's statement, dated 10th July 1937. He says:

"There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment. It applies rigorously to molecules and atoms as well as the largest heavenly bodies and to all matter in the universe in any phase of its existence from its very formation to its ultimate disintegration."

Again, we read about incoming energy from the environment - not outgoing from any theoretical point source as our current physics assumes.

Quoting professor Clerk Maxwell from his Electrodynamics theory, we read 'After tracing to the action of the surrounding medium both the magnetic and the electric attractions and repulsions, and finding them to depend on the inverse square of the distance, we are naturally led to inquire whether the attraction of gravitation, which follows the same law of the distance, is not also traceable to the action of a surrounding medium. Gravitation differs from magnetism and electricity in this; that the bodies concerned are all of the same kind, instead of being opposite signs, like magnetic poles and electrified bodies, and that the force between these bodies is an attraction and not a repulsion, as is the case between like charges and magnetic bodies.

In his work we read:'The lines of gravitating force near two dense bodies are exactly of the same form as the lines of magnetic force near two poles of the same name; but whereas the poles are repelled, the bodies are attracted. Let E be the intrinsic energy of the field surrounding two gravitating bodies M1 and M2...If R be the resultant gravitating force, E=Constant - Σ ((1/8 π)R2dV. The intrinsic energy of the field of gravitation must therefore be less wherever there is a resultant gravitating force.
As energy is essentially positive, it is impossible for any part of space to have negative intrinsic energy. Hence those parts of space in which there is no resultant force, such as the points of equilibrium in the space between the different bodies of a system, and within the substance of each body, must have an intrinsic energy per unit volume greater than (1/8 π)R2, where R is the greatest possible value of the intensity of gravitating force in any part of the universe. The assumption, therefore, that gravitation arises from the action of the surrounding medium in the way pointed out, leads to the conclusion that every part of this medium possesses, when undisturbed, an enormous intrinsic energy, and that the presence of dense bodies influences the medium so as to diminish this energy wherever there is a resultant attraction'.

Unfortunately, Maxwell did not persue this line of thought any further, but the above thoughts regarding the existence of an enormous intrinsic energy within the surrounding medium are of primary importance. Another interesting issue to realize is that the relative strengths are on very different scales, for example, the gravitational attraction relative to the electrical repulsion between two electrons is equal to 1/4.17E42 or 2.398E-43, that is a difference of 426.2dB.

This unexplained similarity on different scales and types of force fields confuses R.Feynman, as he almost contradicts himself in the same sentence: Quote : There is no explanation of gravitation in terms of other forces at the present time. It is not an aspect of electricity or anything like that, so we have no explanation...But is it still not very remarkable that the two laws [electrical & gravitational] involve the same function of distance? Perhaps gravitation and electricity are much more closely related than we think.

He also states: Many attempts have been made to unify them; the so called unified field theory is only an elegant attempt to combine electricity and gravitation; but, in comparing gravitation and electricity, the most interesting thing is the relative strengths of the forces. Any theory that contains them both, must also deduce how strong gravity is.

Another interesting point is that unlike the other forces, gravitation is always attractive, or positive. We know that both electric and magnetic force fields can be either attractive or repulsive. On the other hand, the gravitational force field, with all its similarities to the other two, can only be attractive, and no two masses can ever repel each other. Any valid theory should explain this phenomena as well.